TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gazzam v. Zimmer

W. L. Gazzam v. John A. Zimmer

Gazzam v. Zimmer, 122 P. 366 (Wash. 1912)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Washington Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 3, 1912
Docket
No. 9949
Citations
122 P. 36668 Wash. 411912 Wash. LEXIS 1244
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Appeal — Record—Statement of Pacts — Affidavits. Affidavits used on motion for a new trial cannot be considered on appeal unless made part of tbe record by bill of exceptions or statement of facts.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Kitsap county, Yakey, J., entered June 3, 1911, upon findings in favor of the plaintiffs, in an action of unlawful detainer.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

The respondents brought this action against the appellants under the statutes of forcible entry and detainer, to recover possession of certain real property theretofore leased by them to the appellants. Issue was taken on the complaint and a trial had, which resulted in a judgment of ouster. The appellants moved for a new trial, setting up as grounds therefor matters not shown by the record, which they attempted to support by affidavits. . The court overruled the motion, and this appeal followed.

*42 The appellants have caused the clerk of the court below to make and certify into this court a transcript of the proceedings of record in that court, in which he has included the affidavits filed in support of the motion for a new trial. In this court his entire argument for reversal is based on matter appearing in these affidavits. The respondents object to their consideration on the ground that they are not properly before us, not having been brought here by a bill of exceptions or a statement of facts. The objection is well taken. Affidavits filed in support of matters of fact are not properly a part of the record of the trial court, and cannot be brought to this court by the mere certification of the clerk of that court.

Eliminating the affidavits, nothing remains for us to consider, as the record properly before us shows that the judgment appealed from is fair upon its face.

The judgment will therefore be affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1914: 21915: 11918: 219142026peak 1914 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Thurman v. Kildall141 P. 691 (Wash. 1914)
  2. Congdon v. Aumiller140 P. 912 (Wash. 1914)
  3. State v. Armstrong151 P. 775 (Wash. 1915)
  4. Davidson v. King174 P. 434 (Wash. 1918)
  5. Richmond v. Denny175 P. 957 (Wash. 1918)

Most recent

  1. Richmond v. Denny175 P. 957 (Wash. 1918)
  2. Davidson v. King174 P. 434 (Wash. 1918)
  3. State v. Armstrong151 P. 775 (Wash. 1915)
  4. Thurman v. Kildall141 P. 691 (Wash. 1914)
  5. Congdon v. Aumiller140 P. 912 (Wash. 1914)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list